On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: (3439 Views)
Why I Deny The Virgin Birth Of Jesus / "What Does The Bible Say About The Virgin Mary?" / Question: Did God Fulfil His Covenant With King Ahaz? (Virgin Birth) (2) (3) (4)
| On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by therationa(m): 1:57pm On Feb 18, 2008 |
DISCLAIMER: The following article you are about to read is NOT my work. It is the work of Kenneth E. Nahigian taken from the site http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/2virgi93.html. I am giving the article and the source in good old-fashion SCHOLARLY TRADITION. This article provides a "plausible" scholarly interpretation of Isaiah 7, commonly used by the Christian community as the prophecy of Jesus' virgin birth. I am posting the entire article as a thread to elicit a SCHOLARLY CRITICAL APPRAISAL from our Christian friends on the forum. I relied on this article in my thread about the virgin birth (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113342.0.html) and was criticized by the Christian scholars on this forum for a sloppy use of the material. I would like now to be put straight on my understanding on Isaiah 7 by a critical review of my source material. So my Christian friends, PLEASE, could you oblige me with your review of the material given below, providing your sources as well, so that I may cross-reference them. I apologize, the article is a bit long. ===================================================================================== A Virgin-Birth Prophecy? by Kenneth E. Nahigian 1993 / March-April Prophecy is a muddy science, and Bible prophecy more muddy than most. Take those Old Testament prophecies. Evangelists never tire of telling us that hundreds were fulfilled in the life of Jesus, far too many to be called coincidence. But how many of these are real, and how many are prophetia ex eventu--prophecies constructed after the fact, products of careful selection and interpretation? To get an idea, let's look at the most famous, the prophecy of the child Immanuel as presented in the Gospel of Matthew: Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (1:22-23 , KJV). Most good Christians take this at face value, assured that the prophet Isaiah did indeed describe Jesus' miraculous conception and birth seven hundred years before. But did he? Authorities are nearly unanimous. The answer is no. What did Isaiah really say? Turning to Isaiah 7:14 (Masoretic text), we find his precise words: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, ha'almah shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Matthew's interpretation of this passage has several problems, the largest hanging on the Hebrew word 'almah. Writing in Greek, the gospel author turned almah into parthenos , a word usually (but not always) meaning "virgin." In fact, he had a precedent for this; the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament used by Greek-speaking Jews of his day, did indeed use parthenos in the Isaiah passage. But the Septuagint was for the most part a notoriously sloppy translation, and its version of Isaiah was generally more error-ridden than the rest. By the Middle Ages, the Jews had abandoned the Septuagint, and later Greek translations, by Aquila, Theodotion, Lucien and others, did not use the word parthenos. (The Septuagint, commonly known as the LXX, is still favored by Eastern Orthodox churches.) Assuredly, the Hebrew Old Testament predating the Septuagint used 'almah, so what did the word mean? While rare in the Hebrew Bible, almah does occur here and there, notably in Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 , but an examination of the contexts of these passages will show nothing to suggest that the noun imputed virginity. On the other hand, a male youth in the Old Testament was called na'ar or elem, the feminine forms of which were na'arah and 'almah respectively. The limited usage of elem (lad or stripling) in the Old Testament nowhere implied sexual purity; thus an 'almah was an adolescent female, virgin or not, just as an elem was an adolescent male. In fact, one verse does seem to use 'almah in reference to a nonvirgin. This is Proverbs 30:19 , which listed four things too marvelous to understand: the way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the sea, and the way of a man with a maiden ( 'almah). To say the least, "the way of a man with an 'almah" would certainly jeopardize a state of sexual purity, but more damaging than this rather obvious fact is the comparison that the writer went on to state: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, 'I have done no wrong'" (v:20 , NAB). It seems odd writer that the author would use 'almah to denote sexual purity and then compare it to the ongoing affairs of an adulterous woman. More likely the author's point was that all these things have one element in common: they do not leave much of a trace. Aside from this, the Torah does, in fact, have an explicit word for virgin (betulah or bethulah), which is always used where the context requires virginity. (For confirmation, see Genesis 24:16 , Leviticus 21:14 , and Deuteronomy 22:15-19 ). Even Isaiah used it in 62:5 . Its nonuse in the "Immanuel" passage is a rather loud hint that Isaiah spoke only of a young woman, not specifically of a virgin. More to the point, nearly all modern commentaries agree with Talmudic scholars that Isaiah's "sign" had nothing to do with a messiah. Reviewing half a dozen for this article, I found only one dissenter. Significantly, it was one that spouted the fundamentalist party line on every other issue. Interested readers can jaunt to the library and peruse the massive Interpreter's Bible (Vol. 5, pp. 217-22), one of the most authoritative works in the field. Or more succinctly, try the popular Harper's Bible Dictionary (Paul J, Achtemeier, gen. ed., 1985), page 419, where this statement is found: It is clear, however, that, Isaiah 7:14 did not speak of the miraculous birth of Jesus centuries later, The sign of Immanuel offered by the prophet to Ahaz had to do with the imminent birth of a child, of a mother known to Ahaz and Isaiah, and signified God's presence with his people, Indeed, Isaiah's word for "sign" was 'ot, which in the Hebrew Bible invariably indicated an imminent sign or omen, not one in the far future. Keep reading, in fact, and you will see Isaiah's sign appear just a few verses later (Is. 8:3-4 ), when a certain prophetess gives birth to a son--a child whom God called "Immanuel" in verse 8. By contrast, nowhere in the New Testament did any character ever call Jesus Immanuel. Why the confusion? Of course, the author of the Gospel of Matthew had a vested interest in the nascent church and wanted to ground the new Christian mythos in Jewish prophecy whenever possible. Almost all scholars agree this "Matthew" was not the apostle but rather a Greek-speaking Christian living in or near Antioch of Syria, who wrote about A.D. 90, about two generations after the crucifixion. Very likely, he was familiar with only the Septuagint version of Isaiah. (That Matthew wrote the first gospel was a tradition started by Bishop Papias of Hieropolos in the second century.) Also, of course, the early Christians would have liked a virgin-born savior anyway, out of sheer competitiveness, because so many other rival religions had one. (Mithra, Zoroaster, Adonis, and Dionysus were just a few.) More- over, we know the gospel writers were not adverse to massaging and even manufacturing details in order to "flesh out" the Jesus story. That is why, for example, you find such conflicting genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 . All things considered, it is hardly surprising that "Matthew" would pull Isaiah a bit out of context and try to wring a new meaning from it. What is surprising is that this literary sleight of hand grew to become such a cornerstone of Christendom and still has modern fundamentalists so befuddled. So let's dust off our Bibles (I like the New Revised English Bible best for clarity and the Revised Standard Version for beauty) and reread the Immanuel prophecy--in context. The setting is the Syro-Ephraimite war (ca. 734 B.C.). Wicked King Ahaz of Judah was frantic about Ephraim (another name for the northern kingdom, Israel) and Damascus (capital of Syria), which were plotting a preemptive strike. Isaiah enters, offering a sign. Ahaz demurs. Isaiah storms at him for his lack of faith and then provides a sign anyway: A male child would be born. Before this child is old enough to know to "refuse evil and choose the good," Assyria would lay waste both Samaria and Damascus (7:16 ). [This sub-prophecy, in fact, came true in 2 Kings 16:9 ; 17:5-6 .] Then, to punish Ahaz, Assyria itself, with Egypt, would arise as a far greater threat. Think about this. If Ahaz was concerned with an imminent attack from Samaria and Syria, why offer a sign that would not occur for seven centuries? To Ahaz this would be no sign at all. Also, if the Immanuel child was God incarnate, how could Isaiah speak of a time when Immanuel would not know enough to choose good over evil? What about divine omniscience? Note also the striking parallel between verses 7:16 and 8:4 . Here is Isaiah prophesying almost identically about both children. The more closely you look, the more difficult to deny that these two are identical. You can hardly blame evangelicals for seeing a special significance in the name Immanu'el, Hebrew for "God with us," but such language and imagery was right at home in the world of old Jewish nomenclature, where every other proper name seemed a reminder of God's presence. Thus we have Isaiah, which means "God's help"; Michael , "Like unto God"; Israel," "Striving with God"; Elihu, "He is my God"; Adonijah , "Yahweh Lord"; and a host of others. Then again, some apologists try to rescue their favored exegesis by equating both Immanuel and Jesus with the child mentioned a bit later in chapter 9, "Unto us a child is born, " It is tempting. This section, while obscure, is in fact one of the most powerful and poetic passages in the Old Testament. It may well be an early messianic prophecy (I like to think it is), but in fairness, note that most Jewish scholars (who should know better than evangelicals) insist it is an ode praising Hezekiah, Ahaz's righteous son (2 Chron. 29 ), who came to the throne in 720 B.C. and centralized the worship of Jehovah at Jerusalem. The various titles ascribed to him, such as "Prince of Peace" and "Everlasting Father," were apparently honorifics used by the ancient Jews for favorite kings. (You find the same sort of bread-buttering in Egyptian hymns to the pharaoh and in Babylonian royal eulogies.) Hebrew scholars also remind us, gently, that the key Hebrew verbs in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense. A moot point. For reasons stated earlier, we cannot use the child in Isaiah 9:6 as a bridge connecting Immanuel to Jesus. As Old Testament prophecies of the Christian Messiah go, this one, like so many others, has been overrated. Also see Part 1 here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113342.0.html#msg1963529 ==================================================================================== ===================================================================================================== Some of my other threads The Dangers Of Religious Fundamentalism To Intellectualism https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=110955.msg1929006#msg1929006 On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113676.0.html When And From Where Did Jesus Ascend Into Heaven https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113519.0.html When Was Jesus Born? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113449.0.html On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus [/b]13012dg https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113342.0.html#msg1963529 [b] Was Jesus The Prophesied Messiah? Let's Look At The Evidence. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113303.0.html What Are Your Chances Of Being Saved? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113283.0.html Who Wrote The Gospels And When Were They Written? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113277.0.html#msg1962589 God Selects The Rulers Of Countries; G W Bush, Sadam, Pol Pot, Abacha, Hitler https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113186.0.html#msg1961537 Cannibalism In The Bible: Det 28:53-57, Lev 26:29, Jer 19:9, Ezek 5:10, Lam 4:10 https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113181.0.html#msg1961343 What Are The Core Tenets (doctrines, Value And Virtues) Of Christainity? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112990.0.html What Fate For Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Constantine And Tomás De Torquemada? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112997.0.html#msg1958617 Is The Doctrine Of Trinity Biblical? The Johannine Comma https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112865.0.html#msg1957266 On The Authenticity Of The New Testament, Part 2 https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112848.0.html How Is Salvation Achieved? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-112833.0.html Only For Those Who Know Their Bibles And Some History: Who Was Jesus? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112697.msg1954632#msg1954632 Only For Those Who Know Their Bibles: Old Testament Stories https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112679.msg1954426#msg1954426 Human Sacrifice In The Bible: Lev 27: 29 & Judges 11 https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112584.msg1953340#msg1953340 Please, Please, Please: Christians - Read Read Read Your Bibles https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112578.msg1953311#msg1953311 When Was Jesus Crucified? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112557.msg1952665#msg1952665 On Conversion To A Religion (christianity Or I-slam) https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112547.msg1952353#msg1952353 Faith-healers And Tele-evangelists https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112398.msg1950528#msg1950528 Where Did Sin Originate? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112377.msg1950291#msg1950291 For The Non-beleivers Only, 1 https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112262.msg1948957#msg1948957 Would Christains Be Criminals And Offenders If They Were Not Christians? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112259.msg1948919#msg1948919 On The Authenticity Of The New Testament, Part 1 https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112240.msg1948631#msg1948631 Has Atheism Got Principle? No https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112216.msg1948180#msg1948180 It Is Biblical To Have Sex (and Lots Of It) Before Marriage https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112139.msg1946940#msg1946940 Should The Old Testament Laws Be Observed In The Modern Era? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112114.msg1946682#msg1946682 Founding A State or Nation On Religious Principles https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112086.msg1946268#msg1946268 Great Books About Non-belief https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111928.msg1943935#msg1943935 Who Are The Self-declared Non-believer? Resources For You https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111806.msg1942137#msg194111quc02137 Beware of a Simplistic Interpretation of Jesus's 2nd Coming Passages https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111677.msg1939992#msg1939992 What Is The Evidence That The Bible Is The Word Of God? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113161.0.html#msg1960928 Archbishop Cause Furore Over Sharia Law In The Uk https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111645.msg1939155#msg1939155 Eminent Christian Scientist (francis Collins) Explains The Evolution Of Humans https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111482.msg1936158#msg1936158 Please, Help Me Out With Your Knowledge Of The Bible https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111474.msg1936099#msg1936099 Why Biology Is So Important To Our Modern World https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111466.msg1935975#msg1935975 Genesis Vs Genetics https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111227.msg1932655#msg1932655 Please, Help Me Out With Your Knowledge Of The Bible https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111474.0.html Jesus Genealogy https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111222.msg1932616#msg1932616 £300 (three - Hundred Pound Sterling) Essay Competition https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111143.msg1931508#msg1931508 Beware Of Religious Fundamentalism In Your University Campuses https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=110965.msg1929160#msg1929160 ==================================================================================================== |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by therationa(m): 5:54pm On Feb 18, 2008 |
Anyone had time to review this article? I know it's a bit long  |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by therationa(m): 12:26pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
Imhotep, Please, can you review? Waiting with bated breath. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by olabowale(m): 12:33pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
@Therationa: Virgin birth is not an impossibility. Afterall, intercourse is not the only way to get pregnant. There is artificial insemination, etc. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by Nobody: 12:34pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
I have read the article. The author's main [/i]problem is that of translation. Question -> Does '[i]young woman' necessarily [/b]mean 'not virgin'  God (in the OT) and Jesus (in the NT) have this remarkable [b]capability of speaking on many levels with one sentence. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by therationa(m): 12:36pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
olabowale: Thanks, but slightly off topic |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by therationa(m): 12:39pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
imhotep: If he had meant virgin, he most likely would have used the word betulah, not almah. For example betulah is used several times in the OT when virgin is meant. How about the concept? Was this meant to be a prophecy of events some 700 years hence? |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by Nobody: 12:46pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
I have posted this before. Definitinon -> "Almah ("עלמה"  or plural: alamot ("עלמות" is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl"Note: The Jewish scholars who translated and compiled the Hebrew scriptures (the Torah first and then later the Prophets and the Writings) into a Greek version of the Old Testament, translated almah in Isaiah 7:14 as parthenos, which almost always means "virgin" |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by therationa(m): 12:53pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
imhotep: Well, it is looking increasing probable that that was a mistake in the Septuagint, from which the Greek version of the NT was derived. Jewish scholars accept this as a mistake. In fact the Septuagint has been abandoned by most Jewish scholars as replete with translational errors, and have adopted a recent better translation. So if virgin specifically was meant, the OT would most likely have had betulah, not almah. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by Nobody: 1:10pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
therationa: You have to ask -> Did the Jewish scholars abandon the Septuangint because of their rejection of Christ? Or for some other cogent reason?? |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by therationa(m): 1:12pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
imhotep: Because it was littered with errors, as simple as that. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by Nobody: 1:14pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
therationa:And did these errors support Christ's claim to be the Messiah? |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by therationa(m): 1:17pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
imhotep: This is no way to debate. You are simply looking for ways to get the discussion go round and round in circles. Is that not obvious to you? You know the answer to your question. My answers is "I do not know, I have not examined the text" |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by Nobody: 1:21pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
therationa: Good. Do you now see why you should not quickly take sides with the skeptics I'm sure they have not examined the text too. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by olabowale(m): 1:50pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
@Therationa: Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us (1:22-23 , KJV).Am not a Christian, but the story of Jesus and Mary his mother are well known to all Mus'lims. First, in the semitic society of the time of Mary and even now, women who are not married are rarely allowed to strick out on their own; without a male guardian. Since it is obvious that adultery was not an ideal sexual condition with them, the women may remain a virgin for a very long time, until they are married. This is also true even today within these more religious people, more than say agnostic, atheist enviroment. I do men who are in their thirties and older, who are still virgins because they have never married. All these being said, it will not be unreasonable and too far fetched that a woman who reached the age of maturity (13 is the age of Bermizva among the Children of isreal), and still a virgin and under the authority of a male relative. In the case of Mary, Zachariah was that male. And womanhood comes when the first menstarl condition occurs, anyway. It will not be impossible that these two conditions, Bermizva and menstration happened not too far apart. It is not imposible that earlier prophet had prophesized the birth of Jesus anyhow. And to be named Immanuel meaning God with is, does not mean that the person named is "God." Afterall, Moses said something similar to it, when at the bank of the sea, while Pharaoh and his doomed army were about to overrun them. God is always with the Victor. In Yorubaland Pelu could be Olorunwapelumi, Oluwapelumi, and many derivitives of God with us. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by stimulus(m): 2:07pm On Feb 20, 2008 |
therationa: Good for you - and for us! At least, it is good to know that Nairaland will sanitize itself from any confusion and become a place for mature inputs!  I don tire to read people plagiarizing other people's material and pretending them as their own! |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by therationa(m): 12:56am On Feb 23, 2008 |
stimulus: I thought this was a well-written article. What do you think? I await you review. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by 4Him(m): 5:59am On Feb 23, 2008 |
therationa: You've had plenty of reviews, what have you done with them? Its not like you usually stay to debate those reviews. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by huxley(m): 10:01pm On May 26, 2008 |
How about this one Syrup? |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by huxley(m): 8:39am On May 27, 2008 |
Why was Jesus never called Immanuel as prophesied in the OT. Was it a failed prophecy? |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by syrup(f): 9:57am On May 27, 2008 |
@huxley, I tried to go through quite a number of your threads and came to the conclusion that most of the articles were actually lifted from other sites, as I've seen them well debated in other fora as well. I was actually looking forward to your own contributions, as it would be counter-productive to embark on debating articles from authors who are not here on this Forum to respond directly. Perhaps this was why it struck me that you often really didn't stay on to face up to the answers provided in some of those other posts you raised - probably because you were not well prepared to examine the claims you lifted from other authors. To this end, I'm inclined to agree with this one-liner: 4Him: . . . and that is something I observed for myself in going through most of your threads. If you'd stay on a particular thread and sustain your own arguments (if they could be called "yours" , then I'd have the enthusiasm to take you on several of them quite seasonally. If that is not the case, it would be of no use slaving on any one of them. Let's see you go back and actually provide detailed responses of your own to the answers which have been offered by a few - including imhotep, stimulus and 4Him. The disclaimer would be meaningless as an excuse which is what some others often resort to as an easy escape and a first aid. However, in the spirit of sharing as to give you the confidence that I'm not glibly ducking away from any one of your assumptions (so you don't suppose I have nothing at all as a response), let me take your last query: huxley: It was not a failed prophecy. If you take time to understand the hermeneutics of Scripture, you will indeed find that the prophecy was pointing to the substance of what He was in Himself rather than a mere calling of names. The Name 'Emmanuel' means 'God with us' (Matt. 1:23), and Matthew points out that this was a prophecy alluding to Jesus when He was born: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet" (Matt. 1:22, see Isaiah 7:14). This sheds some very profound light on the nature of the prophecies relating to "Names" of the Messiah. Simply put, the fulfillment of that prophecy was in its substance, rather than bearing the name 'Emmanuel' (or 'Immanuel'). The substance of that prophecy is that God had indeed come to be with His people ("with us" in the Incarnation in fulfillment of the many prophecies alluding to this event.What other prophecies alluded to the Christ as "God with us"? There are several of them. Let me give you a few examples more. Several OT verses speak of God being with His people: (a) Psa. 46:7,11 - "The LORD of hosts is with us . ."; and (b) Isa. 8:10 - ". . speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us". Such proclamations of the confidence that the Divine Presence was with His people abound in the OT. However, when you carefully examine the prophecy relating particularly to the promised Messiah (Christ), you find that it was specifically called a "sign" - Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Those who know the significance of prophetic language have no problem understanding that "a sign" goes far beyond the mere calling of the name - it stood rather for the substance of what He really IS in Himself when that prophecy would be fulfilled: the substance was that God would actually come in the flesh to be with His people - to identify Himself with them for the prupose of redemption. Since this is a prophecy, is it corroborated by other prophets? Certainly, for that would be the substance of Biblical hermeneutics ("Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." - 2 Peter 1:20). One should be willing to exercise the discipline to look at other verses of Scripture that point to the same event. Did Kenneth E. Nahigian ever try to do this? If he was failing in doing this, you can be sure that he was deliberately doing eisegesis rather than exegesis.* The first is "pre[/b]text", the second is "[b]con[/b]text". *[b]eisegesis - reading one's biases into Scripture by refusing to consider the context in other verses *exegesis - exposition of the Bible by careful attention to contextually reading |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by syrup(f): 9:57am On May 27, 2008 |
A few of the other prophets who spoke of God coming to dwell in the midst of His people include the following: Zechariah 2:10 "Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD. Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. Here, God prophetically declared that He would come to dwell in the midst of His people (Zech. 2:10), and though the Jews were looking forward to this event, it nonetheless says that He would "suddenly come" to His Temple - and for all that they would not recognize Him! WHY? Because it was a "sign" - the sign of God Himself in the Incarnation of the Child born by the virgin in a supernatural way. These both speak of the "sign" of His coming to dwell with His people that is alluded to in Isaiah 7:14. Often, prophets speak in symbolic language - and there is a reason for that: (Isa. 28:9 - "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts" . The immature who deliberately reads his own pre[/b]texts into Scripture without considering the [b]con[/b]texts disqualifies himself from understanding the significance of prophetic signs![b]So, a "Name" in this context speaks of the 'Subtance' of that prophecy? Precisely; and we can be confident of this, because Jesus was also called many other names by other prophets, but they were all symbolic of WHO and WHAT He was rather than appellations upon His Person. Another example is found in Jeremiah - Jeremiah 23:5-6 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Our righteousness fall far short of God's Holiness. This was recognized by the prophets, and that is why even Isaiah declares that "In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory" (45:25) - it IN the Lord Himself that we find our justification unto righteousness. What is a "NAME"? Even in modern usage, a name is more significant than mere appellations for calling someone - it points to meaning and substance rather than to what we "call" someone. It often points to a person's reputation and to his/her authority. Here in the UK, civil and legal matters often take place "in the Name of the Queen" - it does not mean that allusion is made to the Queen's personal name (Victoria), but rather to the authority of the Crown. In the same way, the "sign" that Isaiah alludes to in 'Immanuel' was not perculiarly alluding to an appellation as we might address a person (Jones, John, James, etc); rather, that sign points to the substance of that "Name". Emmanuel - God has fulfilled His promise by the prophets: He IS with us. Many blessings. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by huxley(m): 10:59am On May 27, 2008 |
syrup: It hardly matters whether the ideas are my own or not as long as the arguments are valid. I have read alot around the subjects in all sorts of media (books, journals, internet, videos, etc) so it is not surprising that I would be influenced by some of these material. That is generally how knowledge (or falsehood, for that matter) gets transmitted. If you look at the history of my thread, where I have used material for known sources, I have endeavoured to say so by quoting the references. Where there are no references, I have simply phrased some of the questions I had about religions and Christianity as best I can. Some of these questions may already exist out there. Others are purely my own. In either case, these questions may be due to my lack of knowledge in the text and doctrine; or they may be because I find the text inconsistent and therefore not worthy of being believed. I challenge you to show where on the internet (or other media) you think I have copied my questions that have not been referenced! On the question of starting many threads, I had to resort to this for two reasons; 1) I had a lot of issues to present to the forum. 2) Each time I started a discussion, a number of disccusants (4HIM, Stimulus, Imhotep etc) had the tendency to spin it off into another direction. So I went off and started a thread to cater for the new direction they wanted to go and leave the original thread to stay on the main topic. That was my strategy to keep each thread on topic. If you peruse the threads I have started, I have always stayed around to field responses, where the responses were on topic and relevant to the thrust of the argument. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by huxley(m): 11:41am On May 27, 2008 |
It is hard for me to comment on this, firstly as it does not relate to the topic being discussed (Virgin birth). If this was a prophecy of Jesus, then it is strange that when he arrived, he was rounded rejected by the people he was sent to (the Jews) but found company amongst Gentile. Am afraid, you have started to do the same thing that I found irritating (pardon me) with the earlier discussants. We should really be talking here about the prophecy of virgin birth. Shall I go start a thread about other prophecies of Jesus Christ? By right I think you should really be addressing the following issues raised in the main post; 1) The issue of mistranslation of the word virgin/young woman in the Septuagint. 2) The context of the narrative in Is 7; Am afraid, you have not dealt with any of these in your post. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by syrup(f): 1:36pm On May 27, 2008 |
@huxley, Thank you for responding - a better deal from the other two threads I just posted on. huxley: What is remarkable is that the points or arguments are not as valid as you posit - often because you have failed seriously to stand or sustain those same views when answers were proffered. I don't understand how you could feel so threatened as to have raised objections to some people replying your threads (notably 4Him, stmulus and imhotep) if indeed you assumed that your arguments were "valid". Second, "valid" arguments would mean that the discussants (whoever they may be) put their views across quite simply. Overweening pride or uppity is a display of insecurity, and often times has been used as firstaid by those who have no fish to fry. Are you actually one of such? If not, what is wrong with addressing issues responsibly without recourse to such arrogance? Third, my dear huxley, even informed guesses are made on principles. You cannot sustain a view that you posit out of hand out of pretext rather than carefully examining those views contextually. In science, there are standard formulae, theorems and principles that are observed in investigating any phenomena. This is often known as the "scientific method". Honesty in those who passionately pursue truth of any kind will respect those "methodologies" in each case of study so that informed results are adduced. So it is with philosophy - people don't go out of hand to engage in teleological (i.e., philosophical) discussions or debates without following certain models and logic. Even in applying logic, one has to know if the case advanced was put accross by "deductive" or "inductive" logic, and what particular path of reasoning such studies are carried out. And what about theological discussions? Certainly, they follow established principles as well. Often, for those who may not have carefully been following that principle, I have intoned that they take care to not mix up eisegesis for exegesis - they are not the same. When I read so-called objections to the Christian faith (such as you are wont to assume are "valid" , you make the serious mistake of drawing your conclusions before even examining the arguments of those who you plagiarize - which is like saying it is okay to hold just about anything as long as it supports your argument against "Christianity" even before you consider any case on the topic!What is the point of all this? Just simply to remind you that every aspect of rigorous enquiry (whether they are theological or teleogical in nature) must be based on established principles best suited to their own mode of investigation. It is naive to assume that Chemistry can be better understood by applying the principles of Sociology! But the big mistake every single time your authors find themselves making is to cheat behind the counters by ignoring the "models, principles and methodologies" of theological enquries. That said, let me summarize your other concerns. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by huxley(m): 1:50pm On May 27, 2008 |
syrup: Firstly, I am getting exactly the same thing from you as I got from the four other guys, viz; Personal attacks Accusations of plagiarism etc; Despite the fact that I bent over backward to be courteous to them. That is why I asked that they "may not" respond. If you understand the England language, you would know that that does not mean they should NOT post. I just found the personal attacks irritating. And I see you making exactly the same here now. Since you started engaging me, have I attacked you? Try as I might to get the discussion back on track, I get all sorts of abuse. That was why I asked that until they change their behaviour I would not respond to them on my threads. Which the duly did. Apologies were exchanges and accepted alround. If you want to engage me, I would be oblige if you would be respectful and withdraw your charges of plagiarism. BTW, do you know what plagiarism means? I can hardly be accused of that. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by syrup(f): 1:52pm On May 27, 2008 |
@huxley, Having set an intro to a proper understanding of theological discussions - particularly Biblical hermeneutics - I'd now be examining your other worries on this sound principle. To violate this principle is not my problem: it would only rubbish the arguments of those who assume to see a "valid" argument out of cacophony - and I hope that is not where you'd like to see your thread going. huxley: I did not see that happening when I visited your earliest threads. You seem to have been somewhat forced to admit to that after others impressed it upon you. huxley: If they were responsibly put across, it should not have been difficult to hold and sustain your own arguments afterall. Why is this vacant in a higher percentage of "your" threads? huxley: Indeed - I've seen so many of them elsewhere. huxley: That's okay so far. However, if you understood that you lack knowledge in the text and doctrine (as you stated), why not invite responsible answers by seeking amicably to discuss them. Often, unfortunately, you started out with a bias not to discuss, but rather to ridicule and castigate issues you have no understanding whatsoever about! There are many things outside of religion that are believed - I leave it open to you to make your pick (science, philosophy, naturalism, cultures, etc). People have sought to calmly investigate matters seriously without falling on their faces with the recourse to animosity. I am aware of many scientists, for instance, who are have admirable attitudes in seeking answers to things they do not understand in religion. But here is an important distinction: my friend, ATHEISM is NOT science! You can shout "science, science, science" from now till your next taxonomy, but they are not the same! However, people who are so assuming and presumptious are so unable to see the difference. I've appreciated the discourses of some other atheists who see the difference, and not too long ago one reminded me of something I already know: 'evolution is not atheism'. The mistake many people make is to assume that they are synonymous - and this type of attitude is sadly what the fundamentalist atheists often assume. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by huxley(m): 2:02pm On May 27, 2008 |
syrup: I asked you to proved that I have plagiarised. You seem not to be able. My very first thread on this site reference material by another author. Check it out; It is titled "The Dangers of Religiosity to Intellectualism" Where I have not referenced sources, I have constructed my arguments from my own wits based partly on things I would have read in the past. Does that constitute plagiarism. A trip to the dictionary would help you understand the mean of the word "plagiarism". I await your evidence that I have plagiarised. Even if I did, it does not lessen the force of the arguments. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by syrup(f): 2:04pm On May 27, 2008 |
@huxley, huxley: You admitted them earlier, so what's the shouting about? Just a reminder: huxley:. . . and an example is the one on the Virgin Birth which stimulus rigorously answered. Funny thing is that Babs787 had used those same questions repeatedly in several threads - and I don't see what your "challenge" here is warranting a red scream for. huxley: I disagree - at least the few I have perused and earlier hinted at disavow that claim. For one, stimulus offered answers to some of your queiries. Perhaps he noticed you had been recycling some of those questions from others, and subsequently raised the flag. But to have afterwards intoned that they were welcome to NOT post replies in your thread was a grave mistake on your part. Second, recently in another thread I just responded to, you claimed that "NO ANSWERS" were forth-coming - a very misleading claim to make in the face of the fact that they gave you answers. Your claim here is untennable - please go back and have the humility to acknowledge the same. huxley: You cannot deny that they also respected your threads - specifically those you had requested were particular for the benefit of non-believers. If I remember clearly, one of them (stimulus or imhotep?) had definitely observed some admirable cordiality to respect your request (where he initialy had posted a reply about Anthony Flew the Deist). huxley: Not true - more often than not, you either: * asked that they were welcome NOT to post any replies; or - * if they posted, should not expect any replies from you; or - * complained they were attacking you personally (where you failed to be cautious of your own verbiage). |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by syrup(f): 2:14pm On May 27, 2008 |
@huxley, huxley: I understand the English language and use it quite well, thank you. What you offered was a weak excuse to cop out of the arguments you raised. Rather than seek to hold your grounds, you started complaining about "personal attacks" - which does not say very much about your attitude, because you failed to see your own vitriol and attacks on others. This strikes me often about some atheist friends: they start out attacking others (often so presumptiously), and when you read something they don't like, then they begin to complain about attacks. Why is it that they demands you make of others suddenly become tyrranical when demanded of you? huxley: Yes - you did once, and I brought you to smart up for it. We both had to be humbled, and I've learnt my lessons since. If you feel my replies are cast as attacks, I apologise upfront and would appreciate where you felt I came off the wall on that. More than that, I would appreciate where you can point me out to say "thus-and-that is not so. . . because this, that and the other is so". huxley: That is hardly convincing. I have not been following the Forum always even when offline, but even this morning on the thread on 10 Commandments, your reposte to my simple question left much to be desired about your attitude. huxley: Where I felt you lifted those questions, I have made particular references. If you would engage me as well, seek to do so with some sense of dignity. huxley: I could only say that "plagiarism" was euphemistic in what you did - could have been uglier than that. |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by syrup(f): 2:19pm On May 27, 2008 |
@huxley, huxley: I made pointers - did you yet gloss over them again? Too hasty to read my repostes? huxley: Okay, that one was another I recently skimmed through this morning in my leisure - I could not have known it was your first post; but it appears you also posted the same thing in another motherboard (politics or so, can't remember clearly). I'm saying this just to let you know I'm not making mere claims of having followed your posts - I have actually been doing so since you let me know you were the same as therationa. huxley: Plagiarism takes many forms - pretending that something was originally yours where it is not could pass as well. If those arguments were originally yours, you would not claim that you "lack knowledge of the texts", and secondly would have been able to sustain what is originally yours. huxley: Don't let me laugh. huxley: Already hinted above. huxley: Is that another admittance that you did? |
| Re: On The Prophesy Of The Virgin Birth Of Jesus, Part 2: by huxley(m): 2:23pm On May 27, 2008 |
syrup: Would be interesting to see where I admitted this? Can you shown the forum, as nice and honest christian as you are. |
What Is The Most Common Sin Today In The World? / What Are The Benefits Of Paying Tithe? / The Secret Behind Healing Miracles- The Name Of Jesus!
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 226 |